Searching for "university presidents"

2018 survey of college and university presidents

https://www.insidehighered.com/system/files/media/2018_Presidents_Survey_Final.pdf

Presidents believe the business models for elite private colleges, elite private liberal arts colleges and public
flagship universities are viable over the next 10 years. They are less likely to think the business model for
community colleges is viable, and relatively few think for-profit institutions and other private nonprofit
institutions have viable business models.
• Nearly all presidents believe that additional colleges will merge or close this year, with 30 percent predicting that
between one and five colleges will close, 40 percent between 6 and 10, and 29 percent more than 10.
• Thirteen percent of presidents say they could see their own college closing or merging in the next five years.
That is higher than the 9 percent of chief business officers who answered that way in an Inside Higher Ed survey
last summer.

 

university presidents about the university future

The Chronicle of Higher Education article, The View From the Top, What Presidents Think About Financial Sustainability, Student Outcomes, and the Future of Higher Education”, gives a great snapshot of the perceptions and concerns of 400 public and private college Presidents.

http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/21820/docs/WhatCollegePresidentsThink.pdf

Among their beliefs:

  • Roughly one-half of all college courses will be delivered online by 2019
  • 50% of recent graduates are underemployed
  • Three-quarters of college leaders believe career prep is the job of the university
  • Presidents agree the #1 criteria for school ratings should be completion
An extensive survey of college and university presidents, conducted by The Chronicle of Higher Education in January 2015, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY found that two-thirds of them feel that American higher education is going in the wrong direction, with public college leaders worried about the decline of state financial support and leaders of private institutions most concerned with the intense competition for students.
Traditional colleges, particularly the many that are in the middle of the pack but charge high prices, will lose out to nimbler, cheaper competitors offering degrees on flexible timelines, either in hybrid format (in-person and online) or fully online.
private institutions see new graduate programs as potentially lucrative while public universities view online programs as a source for new cash.
Presidents remain optimistic about the value of a college degree, much more than employers do. A majority of college presidents believe the four- year bachelor’s degree is worth more in today’s job market than it was five years ago (see Figure 9). Meanwhile, surveys of employers by The Chronicle and other organizations in recent years have consistently found those who hire college graduates more neutral on the value of a degree. In a Chronicle survey of employers, for instance, 39 percent said a bachelor’s degree was worth the same as five years ago, and 26 percent said it was worth less.
College leaders and employers often don’t see eye-to-eye on what today’s graduates most need to succeed in the workplace. While companies seek recent college graduates with real-world experience, presidents continue to emphasize the value of academics over experience among their graduates. Indeed, compared to a similar survey of presidents conducted by The Chronicle in 2013, campus executives are even more in favor now of emphasizing academics over real-world experience (see Figure 10).
When it comes to getting students ready for the job market, presidents are not always in agreement with employers and parents on what role the institution should play in the process. A majority of college leaders believe it’s their job to offer experiential learning, such as internships, as part of the curriculum as well as offer career preparation in programs and offices across the campus, both in formal and informal settings. But presidents are more divided about whether colleges should provide a broad education or specific training, and one- third of them don’t want to be held accountable for the career outcomes of their students (see Figure 11).

university deans about future

College deans predict higher-ed is in for remarkable changes in 10 years

By Laura Ascione, Managing Editor, Content Services, @eSN_Laura
September 4th, 2017  New survey reveals more than two-thirds of college deans believe institutional change is on the horizon
The survey findings are from the responses of 109 deans of four-year colleges and universities in March and April 2017. Of the respondents, 61 percent were from public universities and 60 percent have been in their jobs at least five years.
Deans were divided on whether faculty members get enough support in teaching courses online–43 percent said faculty are getting shortchanged in how much help they get in rethinking their courses and teaching with technology, while 40 percent said they believe they are getting enough support and 14 percent are neutral.

One-third of deans agree online courses are comparable to face-to-face courses, and roughly the same proportion said they disagree.

Thirty-seven percent of college deans surveyed described the pace of change at their own institutions as “too slow.” Deans surveyed cite lack of money being the biggest hurdle to change, followed by resource constraints on faculty and staff and a resistance or aversion to change.

++++++++++++++++++++
university presidents about future in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=university+presidents

deans on university future

Survey: University Deans Predict Significant Change in the Next Decade

By Rhea Kelly  06/28/17

https://campustechnology.com/articles/2017/06/28/survey-university-deans-predict-significant-change-in-the-next-decade.aspx

new study, “The State of Innovation in Higher Education,” in which 2U and the Academy for Innovative Higher Education (a partnership between Arizona State University and Georgetown University) polled 109 deans across the country about their views on innovation in higher ed. Sixty-one percent of respondents come from public universities and 60 percent have at least five years of tenure in their jobs.

The survey findings reveal a mix of confidence and concern about an uncertain future for U.S. higher education:

  • 83 percent of respondents believe that the higher education system today is the best or one of the best in the world;
  • 61 percent think the higher education system will still be the best or one of the best in the world in 10 years;
  • 91 percent expect the number of online programs at their institution to increase in the next decade;
  • 78 percent said colleges and universities are doing a good, very good or excellent job of fostering academic innovation;
  • A quarter of respondents think the higher education system is heading in the right direction; and
  • A third of respondents said the pace of change at their own institutions is “too slow,” citing lack of money as the biggest hurdle to change.

“We also found that, amid rising tuition prices and student debt, most deans still believe that higher education is a good return on the investment,” added Selingo.

The full report is available here.

++++++++++++++
more on administration about university future in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/10/20/university-presidents-about-the-university-future/

The iGen Shift

The iGen Shift: Colleges Are Changing to Reach the Next Generation

The newest students are transforming the way schools serve and educate them, including sending presidents and deans to Instagram and Twitter.

By Laura Pappano 

A generation that rarely reads books or emails, breathes through social media, feels isolated and stressed but is crazy driven and wants to solve the world’s problems (not just volunteer) is now on campus. Born from 1995 to 2012, its members are the most ethnically diverse generation in history, said Jean M. Twenge, psychology professor at San Diego State University.

Campuses also have been slow to recognize that this age group is not millennials, version 2.0.

“IGen has a different flavor,” said Dr. Twenge of San Diego State University and author of “iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy — and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood — and What That Means for the Rest of Us.”

Getting student attention and keeping it matters to administrators trying to build excitement for campus events, but also in prodding students about housing contracts and honor codes.

Being social on social media attracts students who might tune out official communication. Mr. Babineaux said he and his friends noted when college posts sounded “goofy” or “like your grandfather trying to say swag.”

 

Innovation, Infrastructure, and Digital Learning

Notes from the webinar:
What is Digital Learning

 

 

 

Technology is a metaphor for change, it is also a metaphor for risk

technology is a means of uncertainly reduction that is made possible by the cause-effect relationship upon which the technology is based.

technology innovation creates a kind of uncertainty in the minds of potential adopters as well as represent an opportunity for reduced uncertainty.

The Diffusion of Innovations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

https://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/Diffusion%20of%20Innovations.htm

diffusion of innovations

 

technology is disruptive

  • issues and impacts | response
  • organizational practice and process |  denial, anger
  • individual behaviors and preferences | bargaining
  • visualization: can I see me/us doing that | depression, acceptance

as per https://www.amazon.com/Death-Dying-Doctors-Nurses-Families/dp/1476775540

The key campus tech issues are no longer about IT (in the past e.g.: MS versus Apple). IT is the “easy part” of technology on campus. The challenges: people, planning policy, programs, priorities, silos, egos, and IT entitlements

How do we make Digital Learning compelling and safe for the faculty? provide evidence of impact, support, recognition and reward for faculty; communicate about effectiveness of and need for IT resources.

technology is not capital cost, it is operational cost. reoccurring.

Visualization:

underlying issues; can i do this? why should i do this? evidence of benefit?

http://www.sonicfoundry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Green-PlusCaChange-EDUCAUSEReview-Sept2015.pdf

the more things change, the more things stay the same. new equilibrium.

change: from what did you do wrong to how do we do better. Use data as a resources, not as a weapon. there is a fear of trying, because there is no recognition or reward

Machiavelli: 1. concentrate your efforts 2. pick your issues carefully, know when to fight 3. know the history 4. build coalitions 5. set modest goals – and realistic 6. leverage the value of data (use it as resource not weapon) 7. anticipate personnel turnover 8. set deadlines for decisions

Colleagues,

We apologize for the short notice, but wanted to make you aware of the following opportunity: provide

From Ken Graetz at Winona State University:

As part of our Digital Faculty Fellows Program at WSU, Dr. Kenneth C. Green will be speaking this Thursday, March 22nd in Stark 103 Miller Auditorium from 11:30 to 12:30 on “Innovation, Infrastructure, and Digital Learning.” We will be streaming Casey’s talk using Skype Meeting Broadcast and you can join as a guest using the following link: Join the presentation. This will allow you to see and hear his presentation, as well as post moderated questions. By way of a teaser, here is a recent quote from Dr. Green’s blog, DigitalTweed, published by Inside Higher Ed:

“If trustees, presidents, provosts, deans, and department chairs really want to address the fear of trying and foster innovation in instruction, then they have to recognize that infrastructure fosters innovation.  And infrastructure, in the context of technology and instruction, involves more than just computer hardware, software, digital projectors in classrooms, learning management systems, and campus web sites. The technology is actually the easy part. The real challenges involve a commitment to research about the impact of innovation in instruction, and recognition and reward for those faculty who would like to pursue innovation in their instructional activities.”

Dr. Green is the founding director of The Campus Computing Project, the largest continuing study of the role of digital learning and information technology in American colleges and universities. Campus Computing is widely cited as a definitive source for data, information, and insight about IT planning and policy issues affecting higher education. Dr. Green also serves as the director, moderator, and co-producer of TO A DEGREE, the postsecondary success podcast of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He is the author or editor of some 20 books and published research reports and more than 100 articles and commentaries that have appeared in academic journals and professional publications. In 2002, Dr. Green received the first EDUCAUSE Award for Leadership in Public Policy and Practice. The EDUCAUSE award cites his work in creating The Campus Computing Project and recognizes his, “prominence in the arena of national and international technology agendas, and the linking of higher education to those agendas.”

Casey’s most recent TO A DEGREE podcasts are available now: Presidential Leadership in Challenging Times and Online’s Bottom Line.

Hope to see some of you online and please forward this invitation to anyone who might be interested.

Ken Graetz, PhD, Director of Teaching, Learning, and Technology Services, Winona State University, 507-429-3270

skills not degrees

LinkedIn CEO: Skills, not degrees, matter most in job market

http://www.educationdive.com/news/linkedin-ceo-skills-not-degrees-matter-most-in-job-market/430651/

My note: naturally, the LinkedIn CEO will make such claim, since it is good for his business. Please take a look at this Chronicle of Higher Ed posting:

university presidents about the university future

Namely,
When it comes to getting students ready for the job market, presidents are not always in agreement with employers and parents on what role the institution should play in the process.

presidents are more divided about whether colleges should provide a broad education or specific training, and one- third of them don’t want to be held accountable for the career outcomes of their students

The LinkedIn CIO claims that:
The notion that an entrepreneur who built his career upon a professional network is now saying that skill level is what matters most in a job search should be a sign to colleges and universities that the era of college as a search for personal discovery is rapidly coming to an end.

Colleges must develop stronger training programs, similar to approaches used in applied science for lab and research exposure, to bolster career readiness in the liberal arts and social sciences. Without it, businesses will soon realize that they can develop these learning outlets on their own, in benefit of their own bottom lines.

+++++++++++++++++
more on LInkedIn in this IMS blog:

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=linkedin

teacher evaluation

doctoral cohort student’s request for literature: “I am looking for some more resources around the historical context of teacher evaluation.”

pre-existing bibliography:

Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. I., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of Effective Teacher-Student Interactions in Secondary School Classrooms: Predicting Student Achievement With the Classroom Assessment Scoring System—Secondary. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 76–98.

Alonzo, A. C. (2011). COMMENTARIES Learning Progressions That Support Formative Assessment Practices. Measurement, 9, 124–129. http://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2011.599629

Baker, B. D., Oluwole, J. O., & Green, P. C. (2013). The Legal Consequences of Mandating High Stakes Decisions Based on Low Quality Information: Teacher Evaluation in the Race-to-the-Top Era. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(5), 1–71. http://doi.org/http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1298

Benedict, A. E., Thomas, R. a., Kimerling, J., & Leko, C. (2013). Trends in Teacher Evaluation. Teaching Exceptional Children. May/Jun2013, 45(5), 60–68.

Bonavitacola, A. C., Guerrazzi, E., & Hanfelt, P. (2014). TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPACT OF THE McREL TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM ON PROFESSIONAL GROWTH.

Charlotte Danielson. (2016). Creating Communities of Practice. Educational Leadership, (May), 18 – 23.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher Evaluation in the Organizational Context: A Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 285–328. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053003285

Darling-Hammond, L., Jaquith, A., & Hamilton, M. (n.d.). Creating a Comprehensive System for Evaluating and Supporting Effective Teaching.

Derrington, M. L. (n.d.). Changes in Teacher Evaluation: Implications for the Principal’s Work.

Gallagher, H. A. (2004). Vaughn Elementary’s Innovative Teacher Evaluation System: Are Teacher Evaluation Scores Related to Growth in Student Achievement? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 79–107. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7904_5

Hallgren, K., James-Burdumy, S., & Perez-Johnson, I. (2014). STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR TEACHER EVALUATION POLICIES PROMOTED BY RACE TO THE TOP.

Hattie Helen E-Mail Address, J. T., Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. [References]. Review of Educational Research, .77(1), 16–7. http://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Hazi, H. M. (n.d.). Legal Challenges to Teacher Evaluation: Pitfalls and Possibilities in the States. http://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2014.891898

Ingle, W. K., Willis, C., & Fritz, J. (2014). Collective Bargaining Agreement Provisions in the Wake of Ohio Teacher Evaluation System Legislation. Educational Policy. http://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814559249

Marzano, R. J. (2012). The Two Purposes of Teacher Evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 14–19. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=83173912&site=ehost-live

Moskal, A. C. M., Stein, S. J., & Golding, C. (2016). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Can you increase teacher engagement with evaluation simply by improving the evaluation system? Can you increase teacher engagement with evaluation simply by improving the evaluation system? http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1007838

Quinn, A. E. (n.d.). The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin Looking a t th e B igger Picture w ith Dr. R o b ert M arzan o : Teacher E valuation and D e v e lo p m e n t fo r Im p ro ved S tu d en t Learning.

Riordan, J., Lacireno-Paquet, Shakman, N., Bocala, K., & Chang, C. (2015). Redesigning teacher evaluation: Lessons from a pilot implementation. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/

Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (n.d.). Evidence of systematic growth in the effectiveness of midcareer teachers Can Teacher Evaluation Improve Teaching?

Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (n.d.). The problematic implementation of teacher evaluation policy: School failure or governmental pitfall? http://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213502188

Wong, W. Y., & Moni, K. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of and responses to student evaluation of teaching: purposes and uses in clinical education. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.844222

my list of literature:

Avalos, B., & Assael, J. (2006). Moving from resistance to agreement: The case of the Chilean teacher performance evaluation. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(4-5), 254-266.

Cowen, J. M., & Fowles, J. (2013). Same contract, different day? an analysis of teacher bargaining agreements in Louisville since 1979. Teachers College Record, 115(5)

Flippo, R. F. (2002). Repeating history: Teacher licensure testing in Massachusetts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16(3), 211-29.

Griffin, G. (1997). Teaching as a gendered experience. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(1), 7-18.

Hellawell, D. E. (1992). Structural changes in education in England. International Journal of Educational Reform, 1(4), 356-65.

Hibler, D. W., & Snyder, J. A. (2015). Teaching matters: Observations on teacher evaluations. Schools: Studies in Education, 12(1), 33-47.

Hill, H. C., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 371-384.

Hines, L. M. (2007). Return of the thought police?: The history of teacher attitude adjustment. Education Next, 7(2), 58-65.

Kersten, T. A. (2006). Teacher tenure: Illinois school board presidents’ perspectives and suggestions for improvement. Planning and Changing, 37(3-4), 234-257.

Kersten, T. A., & Israel, M. S. (2005). Teacher evaluation: Principals’ insights and suggestions for improvement. Planning and Changing, 36(1-2), 47-67.

Korkmaz, I. (2008). Evaluation of teachers for restructured elementary curriculum (grades 1 to 5). Education, 129(2), 250-258.

Lamb, M. L., & Swick, K. J. (1975). Historical overview of teacher observation Educational Forum.

Maharaj, S. (2014). Administrators’ views on teacher evaluation: Examining Ontario’s teacher performance appraisal. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (152)

Naba’h, A. A., Al-Omari, H., Ihmeideh, F., & Al-Wa’ily, S. (2009). Teacher education programs in Jordan: A reform plan. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(3), 272-284.

Ornstein, A. C. (1977). Critics and criticism of education Educational Forum.

Pajak, E., & Arrington, A. (2004). Empowering a profession: Rethinking the roles of administrative evaluation and instructional supervision in improving teacher quality. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 103(1), 228-252.

Stamelos, G., & Bartzakli, M. (2013). The effect of a primary school teachers, trade union on the formation and realisation of policy in Greece: The case of teacher evaluation policy. Policy Futures in Education, 11(5), 575-588.

Stamelos, G., Vassilopoulos, A., & Bartzakli, M. (2012). Understanding the difficulties of implementation of a teachers’ evaluation system in greek primary education: From national past to european influences. European Educational Research Journal, 11(4), 545-557.

Sullivan, J. P. (2012). A collaborative effort: Peer review and the history of teacher evaluations in Montgomery county, Maryland. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 142-152.

Tierney, W. G., & Lechuga, V. M. (2005). Academic freedom in the 21st century. Thought & Action, , 7-22.

Turri, M. (2014). The new italian agency for the evaluation of the university system (ANVUR): A need for governance or legitimacy? Quality in Higher Education, 20(1), 64-82.

VanPatten, J. J. (1972). Some reflections on accountability Journal of Thought.

Vijaysimha, I. (2013). Teachers as professionals: Accountable and autonomous? review of the report of the justice Verma commission on teacher education. august 2012. department of school education and literacy, ministry of human resource development, government of India. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 10(2), 293-299.

Vold, D. J. (1985). The roots of teacher testing in America. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 4(3), 5-7.

Wermke, W., & Höstfält, G. (2014). Contextualizing teacher autonomy in time and space: A model for comparing various forms of governing the teaching profession. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 58-80.

Ydesen, C., & Andreasen, K. E. (2014). Accountability practices in the history of Danish primary public education from the 1660s to the present. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(120)